Friendly Persuasion
I have no idea if negative campaigning works. I only know it usually does. And that both sides do it.
So I'm amused when Obama's people speak out against McCain's negativity. Or maybe I'm more amused with how they phrase it. "Hey, don't you know your negative campaigning isn't working? SO STOP IT NOW!"
posted by LAGuy @ 12:18 AM
8 Comments:
Another false question. Well done negative campaigning works. Poorly done negative campaigning doesn't. McCain's efforts have been clunky if the aim was to attract the middle and maybe effective if the efforts are to gin up that portion of the base whose candidates who lost in the primaries (like picking Palin)
Obama's criticisms of negativity are really just another form of campaigning and play well with his core support (i.e. the people wjo propelled him past Hillary, not Dem party regulars)
NEG (can't sign in)
I wish someone would make the effort to distinguish the many gradations of "negative campaigning" from the legitimate (and even necessary) to the awful. Good: pointing out truthful things about your opponent's policies (proposed or historical) that evidence shows have a negative effect on the country. Medium: pointing out quasi-truthful things about a candidate's personality or history that resonate with a significant group of voters although the evidence is thin about whether those things will really hurt the country. Awful: false or misleading conclusions based on faulty evidence that play on prejudices that the candidate him- or her-self believes are the lower-order instincts negative to the ultimate good of the country.
It's a worthwhile project, anon #2. Unfortunately, the reasoning usually breaks down to "when I do it, it's truthful; when they do it, it's evil."
Facts are checkable. The candidates may not agree, but the thinking public should be able to. In this campaign, they seem to be doing that, at least a little bit.
It's not about facts, it's about interpretation of the facts. One of the more intriguing things about this race is seeing how so many impartial "fact checkers" are being attacked by one side or the other for getting it wrong.
It seems like Obama could get a lot of juice out of quoting the Republican platform.
Platforms actually have little to do with how the President runs the country. They're created by insiders to please other insiders.
It can be about the interpretation of the facts, LAGuy -- if you get the facts right in the first place. There is stretching the facts (Category 2), but there is also lying. Although political hacks will continue the argument even after the lie is exposed, the less partisan voters walk away with a conclusion.
Post a Comment
<< Home